How the US and China collaborated to get nuclear material out of Nigeria — and away from terrorist groups, Defense News, By: Aaron Mehta, 14 Jan 19, “……… Moving the nuclear material out of Nigeria has been a long-sought goal for the United States and nonproliferation advocates. But the goal has taken on increased importance in recent years with the rise of militant groups in the region, particularly Boko Haram, a group the Pentagon calls a major terrorist concern in the region.

Underscoring the importance of the operation: the key role China played in transporting and storing the plutonium, with the operation happening just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump made an explicit threat to China about growing America’s nuclear arsenal.

………….Material that is attractive to terrorists’

It was the mid-1990s when Nigeria, with technical support and backing from China, began work on what would become Nigerian Research Reactor 1, located at Ahmadu Bello University in Kaduna. The location opened in 2004, and is home to roughly 170 Nigerian workers.

NIRR-1 is classified as a miniature neutron source reactor, designed for “scientific research, neutron activation analysis, education and training,” per the International Atomic Energy Agency. Essentially, the reactor powers scientific experiments, not the local grid.

The design, however, used highly enriched uranium, or HEU, a type of nuclear substance often referred to by the general public as weapons-grade uranium. This kind of uranium forms the core of any nuclear weapons material, and the Nigerian material was more than 90 percent enriched, making it particularly attractive for anyone looking to use it.

Since NIRR-1 went online, however, improvements in technology meant that experiments involving highly enriched uranium could now be run with a lesser substance. Across the globe, the IAEA and its partners have worked to swap out weapons-grade material with lightly enriched uranium, or LEU, which is enriched at less than 20 percent, and hence unusable for weapons. In all, 33 countries have now become free of HEU, including 11 countries in Africa.

With just over 1 kilogram of HEU, the Nigerian material, if stolen, would not be nearly enough to create a full nuclear warhead. However, a terrorist group would be able to create a dirty bombwith the substance or add the material into a stockpile gathered elsewhere to get close to the amount needed for a large explosion.

In a statement released by the IAEA, Yusuf Aminu Ahmed, director of the Nigerian Centre for Energy Research and Training, was blunt about his concerns over keeping the weapons-grade material in his country. “We don’t want any material that is attractive to terrorists,” he said.

And the nature of these types of reactors, used primarily for research, means they are ideal targets for terrorist groups looking for nuclear material, said Jon Wolfsthal, a nuclear expert who served as senior director for arms control and nonproliferation at the U.S. National Security Council from 2014 to 2017.

They’re small reactors, they’re not power reactors where the fuel is so radioactive it kills you,” he said. “This is very attractive to a proliferation point of view, and they are research reactors, so they are often at universities without high security.”

All of which gave the governments involved incentive to get the material out of Nigeria sooner rather than later, and which led to the group of experts sitting in Ghana, waiting for a call………..

Replacing HEU with LEU in research reactors naturally requires caution, as anything nuclear-related comes with risks. But the Nigerian mission was particularly difficult because of security concerns, Hanlon said. He noted that Boko Haram, while not in the Kaduna region, has been operating in Nigeria for quite some time.

“We had concerns about the security on the ground, in the region. Working very closely with the U.S. embassy, there were additional security requirements put upon us and limitations for us on having people on the ground at the facility itself,” Hanlon said.

……………While the technicians were able to leave the country once their daylong mission was complete, security on site remained thick for the next five weeks as administrators worked the logistics and clearances needed to fly nuclear material over other nations’ airspace. Asked about the security level during this down period, Dov Schwartz, an NNSA spokesman, said that “extensive planning went into ensuring the removed highly enriched uranium was safe and secure prior to transport.”

“All of our partners understood that operational security was paramount,” Schwartz said. “The world is a safer place today as a result of the determined work to remove this weapons useable Uranium from Nigeria.”

Finally, on Dec. 4, the HEU was escorted by the Nigerian military toward the An-124, loaded onto the aircraft and sent on its way to its final destination. The material was heading for China.

China’s role

The removal operation cost roughly $5.5 million, with the United States contributing $4.3 million. The United Kingdom ($900,000) and Norway ($290,000) also chipped in. But while it didn’t contribute money, China’s role in the operation was outsized — and occurred as the war of words from the Trump administration toward Beijing was reaching a fever pitch, one that did not die down in the weeks to come.

As the October operation was just hours from starting, U.S. President Donald Trump took to the press to discuss nuclear material and China.

“Until people come to their senses, we will build [the nuclear arsenal] up,” Trump told reporters just hours before the Nigeria operation was to begin. “It’s a threat to whoever you want. And it includes China, and it includes Russia, and it includes anybody else that wants to play that game. You can’t do that. You can’t play that game on me.”

By the time the Antonov plane — carrying the HEU, along with American inspectors and security — arrived at Shijiazhuang airport in China on Dec. 6, the arrest of a Chinese technology executive in Canada had inflamed fears of a trade conflict between the two countries.

Once the material landed in China, local officials took possession of the uranium, marking the end of the Nigerian mission — but not necessarily the end of the material……..

That the United States and China were able to ignore politics to get the HEU removal done shouldn’t be a surprise, Wolfsthal said. Traditionally, countries that supply uranium to partners around the world take that material back if needed.

“Even though the national level conversation is really poor because of trade and other issues, the technical collaboration between laboratories, between nuclear engineers, that’s generally gone pretty well,” he said. He added that China has invested heavily in LEU over the last decade, and therefore also has an interest in encouraging others to switch to that technology.

Premium Times Nigeria, August 12, 2018, Kemi Busari Seven months after PREMIUM TIMES published an investigation on the sorry state of Nigeria’s Nuclear Technology Centre, some abandoned projects within the centre have been completed.

Following the report of security loopholes in the investigation, the management of the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC) which oversees the centre also contracted a private firm to provide security for the centre.

In the two-part series published by PREMIUM TIMES in January, three projects were designated as abandoned as work had stopped on them.

Read first and second part of the investigation.

Identified as uncompleted were the centre’s recreational and educational facility, instrumentation laboratory and waste management plant.

In the report, some workers of the centre complained of idleness due to the inadequate facilities

The report also beamed a search light on the porous security at the centre which is partly due to the management’s insensitivity to the centre’s peculiar needs and a failed surveillance project………..

Waste Management
Meanwhile, works have continued on the radioactive waste management facility at the centre.

Awarded at over N400 million in 2009, a building that was supposed to serve as the radioactive waste management facility was overgrown with weed when this reporter first visited September 2017.

Waste management plants and equipment comprise various devices and machines used for treating, converting, disposing and processing wastes from various sources.

The construction of low/medium radioactive waste management facility was awarded at the contract sum of N401.4 million to Commerce General Limited and so far, N312 million has been paid to the contractor, the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC) said in response to a Freedom of Information request.

During the last visit, PREMIUM TIMES reporter observed the presence of the contractor at the site of the facility.

The management of NAEC did not respond to multiple inquiries on the rationale for redesign of the facility.

One of the staff members told this newspaper that the redesigning is unavoidable to correct the flaws of the contractor that first worked on the project.

He expressed optimism at the prospect of the facility.

“A lot of hazards will be reduced once it’s completed. As it is now, the country does not have a place to properly dispose our nuclear wastes. If it is completed and put to use, these hazards will be reduced. There is much to be benefitted if completed.”

Improved Security
………..But the level of security is not enough as expected of a nuclear technology centre says a staffer.

“The security is better but it’s not commensurate with what we expect in a nuclear environment. We commend the management for getting these people but they should give them orientation and we need armed security.

“There are differences. Before, if you come here, you won’t see anybody (at the gate). But now, it’s no longer like that. Even at weekends, you’ll meet them and policemen too. They are new and we feel that security of such places as this should be saddled with people that have at least basic educational level on nuclear technology,” he concluded. https://www. premiumtimesng.com/news/ headlines/279786-after- premium-times-report- contractors-complete- abandoned-projects-at- nigerias-nuclear-technology- centre.html

INVESTIGATION: At Nigeria’s abandoned nuclear centre, failed projects, idle staff and ‘fraud’ [Part 2] Premium Times, January 27, 2018, Kemi BusariAwarded at over N400 million in 2009, what was supposed to be a radioactive waste management facility at Nigeria’s Nuclear Technology Centre never came to life.

Instead, a building overgrown with scrubs lies east of the gamma irradiation facility. Waste management plants and equipment comprise various devices and machines used for treating, converting, disposing and processing wastes from various sources.

The construction of low/medium radioactive waste management facility was awarded at the contract sum of N401.4 million to Commerce General Limited and so far, N312 million has been paid to the contractor, the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC) said in response to a Freedom of Information request made over a month ago.

The project, according to NAEC, was 78 percent complete and has “only suffered delays.”

“The project was not abandoned. It only suffered delays due to factors outside the control of the commission,” the agency said.

The delays, NAEC said, include; “inadequate funding of capital projects generally, over the years, modification of the original design, as recommended by IAEA experts, which has resulted into changes in the BOQ figures and this development is being discussed with the contractor,” and also, “no outstanding Interim Payment Certificate on the project.”

A staff of the NTC, who was privy to the contract and execution since 2009, said the project had been used to embezzle money from government since the time of award.

“It is true that they changed the plan of the plant but they’ve never done anything meaningful there since they mounted these blocks,” he said.

“The contractor is not qualified and along the line, he got stuck in the project and we’ve not seen or heard about him for many years now.”

PREMIUM TIMES’ efforts to reach the management of Commerce Nigeria Limited were unsuccessful as the company has no website or any visible record.

Its recorded address at Plot 3, Railway Avenue, Kachia Road, Kakuri, Kaduna South, Kaduna, does not exist, this paper found out during a visit there.

“We’ve never heard of that place,” several residents of Kachia told this reporter after attempts were made to locate the company.

In Nigeria, it is not uncommon for ‘brief case’ contractors, most times in connivance with the awarding entity, to register a company for the sole purpose of bidding for contracts and making quick money.

As alleged by staff of the centre, this may be the case as even the figures quoted in FOI response by NAEC are contradictory.

While the commission said the project was 78 percent complete, a visit to the facility told a different story: an expanse of land overgrown with weeds and a construction no way near half-way complete which, in no way, justified the commission’s claim of paying almost 80 percent of the total contract sum to the contractor.

If the contract was awarded at N401. 4 million and N312 million had been paid so far, the balance should be about N89 million. But NAEC quoted N329 million.

‘Abandoned’ nuclear instrumentation laboratory

One of the components of the masterplan of the centre is the nuclear instrumentation laboratory which is supposed to serve as workshop for students, researchers and others in the nuclear field.

The project was awarded at the cost of N829.6 million to Trois Associate Limited in 2012 and it is 68% complete, NAEC’s response to an FOI stated………….

Nigeria joined IAEA, an international body for cooperation in the nuclear field in promoting safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, in 1964.

The IAEA safety standards, was enshrined to ensure protection of people and the environment against radiation risks, safety of facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks. The world body recognised this to include, safety of nuclear installations, radiation safety, the safety of radioactive waste management and safety in the transport of radioactive material.

The world body listed some fundamentals which must be observed by member states in section 3.30 of the safety standard………

Risky: Nigeria has oil but infrastructure maintenance is poor. It is considering the nuclear option. (Akintunde Akinleye, Reuters)

While questions swirl around the progress of South Africa’s nuclear plans, Russia’s state nuclear agency Rosatom is losing no time in selling the atomic dream to other African countries.

Last week the company signed project-development agreements with the Nigerian government for the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant and research centre housing a multipurpose research reactor.

Nigeria has extensive oil and gas reserves but suffers from chronic electricity shortages.

Media reports suggest the deal could cost about $20-billion, but Rosatom said the costs have yet to be determined.

The agreements were signed in order to adopt the appropriate approach and establish the project’s implementation details, a Rosatum official said. “Cost estimations and project specifications will be evaluated in accordance to this agreement,” the official said.

FG’s guidance on licensing process for nuclear power plants set – D-G NNRA , Vanguard, FEBRUARY 28, 2017 Abuja – The Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA) said it was reviewing the Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards (NSSS) Bill regulations to accommodate the operation of Nuclear Power Programme (NPP) in the country. Prof. Lawrence Dim, the Director-General of the authority said this on Tuesday in an interview in Abuja.

Dim said that the NSSS Bill formed the basis for science and nuclear energy operations in the country and was undergoing a revision by relevant stakeholders to ensure that it was exclusive. “The Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards bill is the act that will guide the operation of nuclear science, technology, and nuclear energy practice in Nigeria. “It is very important that it is passed because it is the basis for any operation in Nigeria. If it is not passed, anything we are doing in that sector is null and void. “This bill has been with us from the last national assembly and it went through the lower house but could not get the concurrence of the upper house………

One of the most important provisions of the NSSS bill is that no person shall site, construct, commission, operate or decommission a nuclear installation without a license issued by the NNRA.

The bill also recommends that an operator shall be exclusively liable for injury to any person and propertyupon proof that the damage was caused by a nuclear or radiological incident.

The Director-General/Chief Executive Officer (DG/CEO) of the authority, Professor Lawrence Dim, who made this appeal in a signed statement made available to the Nigerian Tribune in Abuja, on Sunday, further urged the government to ensure that Nigeria paid up all her access contribution fees to the IAEA to enable the NNRA made meaningful contributions in the society.

He also implored the government to improve the funding of the NNRA, as nuclear power programme required long term commitment, pointing out that the authority has lived up to its mandate by continuously ensuring the protection of life, health, as well as property and the environment.

Professor Dim observed that there was the need for the institutionalisation of the Nuclear Safety Security and Safeguards Bill through an act of the National Assembly in order to domesticate the nation’s international obligations.

The DG, who admitted that there was inadequate information on the beneficial uses of ionizing radiation, said these were parts of recommendations after the 4th National Workshop organised by the NNRA in Abuja for Editors and Correspondents.

According to him, government at all levels should ensure that all facilities that ought to be under regulatory control of the NNRA are indeed regulated by the NNRA. Not all the facilities that should be under regulatory control of the NNRA are indeed regulated by the Authority.

“There is generally a low level of awareness with respect to the nuclear sector. The Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards Document (Bill) is yet to be passed into law by the National Assembly. There should be more information dissemination on the nuclear sector in order to enlighten the public.

“Government should embark on an intensive manpower development to achieve the critical mass of professionals for the development of the nuclear sector. The NNRA should collaborate with the relevant agencies on grassroots sensitization”, he added.

“………..the bigger issue should be that uranium mining is just a very dirty business that we didn’t clean up but source out. France used to have 200+ uranium mines but thanks to better care for environment and workers the last one closed in 2001. Instead, new ones were opened in places like Niger, Namibia and Malawi. In short: places where we can shift the real costs from uranium mining to the people and environment. As a matter of fact, CEOs in the business are quite frank about that. The former CEO of Paladin, John Borshoff, an Australian uranium producer who opened mines in Namibia, said that Canadian and Australian environmental norms are “over-sophisticated“. What he actually means is that in African countries you don’t need to pay much or anything at all to “protect” either your workers or the people living in the vicinity from dying from cancer due to exposure to uranium.

He’s just implementing the Lawrence Summers Principle. This ‘principle’ originates from a 1991 memo written or dictated by Summers whilst he was the World Bank’s chief economist. In this memo, he promoted dumping toxic waste in the Third World for economic reasons: “Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? […] A given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”

The uranium sector squared up to that. But for how much longer will it get away with that?

Last time rebels in Mali came too close to the AREVA mines in Niger for comfort, France suddenly sent in their army. Under some humanitarian pretext. And if rebels don’t succeed in capturing these remote mines, the global environmental justice movement might just succeed in closing a couple of them down.

The legacy from uranium mining

Being part of that movement, I’ve had the ‘pleasure’ of making a toxic tour around a now closed uranium mine in Bulgaria. Massive amounts of toxic sludge were stored behind a weak dam that showed signs of distress after heavy rains caused a spill in 2009. Old EU money was still keeping the dam up but as we’re talking about radioactive waste, money will need to keep flowing to dam repairs for millennia to come.

Since 1992, when the mines closed, and for time immemorial, that will be public money. And that’s how it goes with uranium mines in places with weak or no legislation: short-term private profits followed by perpetual public losses. In Bulgaria the people are still lucky enough to be in the EU with at least some environmental regulations and EU money for environmental protections. The same goes for other EU countries like France, which has dozens of zombie mines: dead but still active. The US also has plenty more zombie mines. The lands of the Navajo Nation include over 500 abandoned uranium mines (AUMs) as well as homes and drinking water sources with elevated levels of radiation. Despite the fact that they stopped operating in 1986, new and related lung cancers, bone cancers and impaired kidney functions keep appearing.

But while EU and US now have enough safeguards to keep their own uranium safe under the ground, there’s nothing of that in Namibia or Niger. These two countries are rising players on the uranium market, both exporting their uranium to the EU. Niger has now produced more uranium than France ever did in it’s whole history. It’s here that UK-Australian and French companies are doing the dirty digging that destroys local environment and populace.

Three reports from the EU-funded EJOLT project deal with the environmental and social issues related to uranium mining. One deals with the impacts, one concentrates on a mine in Malawi and the third dwells on the examples of successful resistance to big mining in general.

Bruno Chareyron, a French nuclear engineer who authored most of these reports, has been carrying out toxic tours along uranium mines for the last two decades. That’s not always an easy job, with for example the police confiscating most of your measuring equipment upon arrival in Niger. Nevertheless, Bruno was able to measure that radioactive scrap metal from the mines and mills is sold on the market. Waste rocks from the mines were used to pave roads, build homes and even at the local hospital where the radiation was 100 times above normal. Piles of radioactive waste were left in open air, unprotected, next to two cities with a total population of 120.000.

The missing piece of the puzzle

Where is uranium in the whole debate about nuclear energy? It’s usually only mentioned when the industry says: uranium is only a tiny part of the total cost of our energy model, unlike the situation in the gas and oil industry.

Well, there’s a reason why it’s only a tiny part of the total cost and it’s called cost shifting.

Nigeria: Say No to Nuclear Energy in Nigeria AllAfrica, 1 May 16“…..Nigeria’s history of disaster management or maintenance culture in the past and the present has much to be desired of, so how can it want to project into a future of nuclear energy with all the attendant risk.

It does not take an expert in Nuclear energy to be able to state basic obvious facts that are glaring. Any major mishap involving radiation leaks from nuclear energy can lead to a disaster of catastrophic proportion that could lead to thousands of death, long term health problems, spikes in cancer incidents and birth defects. The devastation of a nuclear disaster in a highly populated country like Nigeria would send shock waves around the world. A breach in the nuclear containers of a nuclear reactor or a nuclear meltdown would release nuclear materials into the atmosphere and ground and could literally obliterate parts of the country and turn them into waste lands and “ghost lands”.

No matter how prepared even the extremely prepared and efficient countries are, in a case of a nuclear disaster they can only try to mitigate the damage, so what chance would Nigeria have if a nuclear melt down were to occur in the country. Even if the argument is that the likelihood of a nuclear disaster is minuscule, should Nigeria of today, the way it is, subject its people to that risk? The risk out weighs the benefit.

Was it not in Koko, Delta State, that someone shipped in containers of nuclear waste?

Countries try to get rid of their radio-active waste, yet a Nigerian shipped it into his country and dumped it amongst his people. The community, struggling under their daily routine for survival did not sense the eminent danger and instead opened up the containers, used them to collect water and for other domestic use. By the time the government brought it to public knowledge, the people in the affected area of Koko had been exposed to radiation. When scientist came with Geiger counters to measure the amount of radiation in the area and also on the people, a lot of them did not understand what was going on and had little understanding of the dangers of nuclear radiation. Have the people of Koko been followed? Have longitudinal studies been done on their health status? Were children born in that area since the episode monitored? Is the soil in that area still being tested regularly or have the people of Koko been forgotten? These are but a few of the questions…….

Mr. Osaisai, who disclosed this in an interview with newsmen on Friday in Abuja, said that the Nuclear Technology Centre, Sheda, was also a part of the nuclear centres of excellence.

He said the first two were the Centre for Energy Research and Training (CERT), Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria and Centre for Energy Research and Development (CERD), Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife.

He listed the latest centres as the Centre for Nuclear Energy Research and Training (CNERT), University of Maiduguri, and Centre for Nuclear Energy Studies (CNES), University of Port Harcourt.

The other is the Centre for Nuclear Energy Studies and Training (CNEST), Federal University of Technology, Owerri.

According to him, the establishment of these centres without a corresponding increment in the allocation to NAEC led to the reduction in funding of CERT and CERD.

“It is the mandate of NAEC to develop nuclear technology for the economic development of the country and produce and dispose atomic energy.

“To carry out research into matters connected with the peaceful uses of atomic energy, among others.

“CERT and CERD are arms of NAEC but in order to boost capacity of nuclear research and training, government created a lot of other centres.

“Remuneration, compensation, allowances are part of the public service and everything is paid according to guidelines.

Uyo — The Akwa Ibom State Leaders Caucus has rejected plans by the Nigerian Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC) to site a Nuclear Power plant in Itu local Government Area of the state. The group attributed their rejection of the Nuclear Power plant to disastrous consequences that failure of nuclear plants had brought in other parts of the world.

The leaders’ caucus questioned why Nigeria, which they said had a perennial incompetence in matters of safety and security, could venture into such a risky project, while countries with known competences, like Germany, Italy, USA, Russia and Japan are shutting down such plants.

Addressing a press conference in Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital on last week Thursday, the Leaders Caucus represented by Senator Anietie Okon said that for Nigeria with its famed lack of maintainable culture, to dabble into such risky venture was a clear and deliberate invitation to disaster of monumental proportions……..http://allafrica.com/stories/201507071359.html

Nigeria: Community leaders oppose nuclear plant site, Star Africa, APA July 3, 2015The Leaders Caucus of the Akwa Ibom State in south-eastern Nigeria has rejected plans by the Nigerian Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC) to site nuclear power plant in Itu Local Government Area of the state.

The Community leaders, led by Senator Anietie Okon, told journalists on Thursday in Uyo, the state capital the rejection was due to disastrous consequences that failure of nuclear plants had brought to even more discerning climes.

He wondered what gave Nigeria, where perennial incompetence in matters of safety and security has become legendary, the impetus to venture into such a risky project, while countries with known competences like Germany, Italy, US, Russia and Japan are shutting down such plants.

Okon said that gambling with such risky issue by Nigeria was a clear and deliberate invitation to disaster of monumental proportions.

NGO warns FG That Setting up a nuclear power plant in Nigeria would be suicidal, FunGrade, 29 June 15
Mr Nnimmo Bassey, the Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), said setting up a nuclear plant in Nigeria would be suicidal given the high level of operational challenges it would face. Bassey said this in Abuja while presenting a paper titled: “Risks and deaths as workers generate wealth’’ organised by HOMEF’s Sustainability Academy on Health and the Extractive Sector Workers. The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the programme was sponsored by the UNDP and the Federal Ministry of Environment in collaboration with HOMEF. He said that the setting up of a nuclear plant was suicidal because of the high technical and environmental demand associated with handling radioactive materials. “Uranium and nuclear power plants are inseparable. ”
Nigeria has found it difficult to run simple hydroelectric and thermal power plants. “It would be suicidal to install nuclear power plants here,’’ Bassey said. The director said the proposal to site such a facility in Akwa Ibom would not be advisable because of the serious environmental implication. “And to think of locating one in Akwa Ibom State is nothing but adding insult to injury in an already highly polluted Niger Delta. “It will also be a time bomb set against the workers,’’ he said. Bassey said that the sustainability academy was aimed at highlighting the fact that workers and communities were at the frontlines of exposure to toxic chemicals that often result in fatalities. The director further said that more than 2.3 million workers worldwide had been exposed to work-related diseases or accidents annually. He said that more than one million extractive industries workers die annually of toxic chemical across the globe.

He quoted the ITUC’s Secretary General to have said that occupational cancer was not a mystery disease but result of workers’ exposure to danger when working with cancer-inducing chemicals. Bassey said that workers with asbestos and petrochemical companies were exposed to high presence of benzene which could cause cancer. He further quoted the ITUC leader as saying, “wherever stricter controls are proposed, industry representatives or their hired guns appear, challenging the science and predicting an economic catastrophe.’’ Bassey said that companies in the extractive sector spent huge amount of money in efforts to block regulations seeking to curb the use of certain chemicals to reduce the exposure of workers to harm. “To do this, they churn out tonnes of publications and glossy so-called sustainability reports while all the time promoting what has been described as paralysis by analysis……..

He said that miners in Namibia digging uranium ore for mining companies had developed lung cancer, leukemia, kidney diseases and other ailments from the free particles and radioactive gas inhaled during the process. Bassey said one of the miners testified that the doctors were instructed not to inform them about their results or illnesses but kept supplying them with medications when they were finished or about to die. The director said that in spite of the health and safety measures announced by extractive sector, workers sometimes were not aware of the dangers their daily toil portend. “Sadly, however, some workers fully aware that they are making a dying, not a living as they toil in dangerous activities continue in silence due to fear of job losses,’’………http://fungrade.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/setting-up-nuclear-power-plant-in.html

Nigeria in $20bn nuclear power talks with Russia – struggling S. Africa currently has eight times more capacity 14 APR 2015 BLOOMBERG, JOSEPH BURITE “………….South Africa, with a third of Nigeria’s population yet eight times more installed capacity, has also signed an agreement with Rosatom as the nation looks to add 9,600 megawatts of atomic power to its strained grid.

South Africa’s agreement with Rosatom gave the company the right to veto the nation doing business with any other nuclear vendor, Johannesburg-based Mail & Guardian reported in February.

Majority stake
Rosatom and Nigerian officials met last month within the framework of a 2009 intergovernmental agreement to discuss cooperation, Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said by phone from Istanbul. To date, no memorandums have been signed about the development of a nuclear plant, he said.

Rosatom will hold a majority, controlling stake in Nigeria’s nuclear facility while the rest will be owned by the country, with roles to be specified in contracts, Osaisai said. “The government will enter a power-purchasing agreement for the nuclear plant.”

The plants will be financed by Rosatom, which will then build, own, operate and transfer them to the government, he said.

Rosatom is marketing its reactors with generous financing offers as Moscow seeks new markets for its technology amid a looming recession. Over the last year, its international portfolio of orders has grown to more than $100 billion, including deals to build new reactors in Iran, Hungary, India and Jordan.

Nigeria to get $6bn nuclear plant in 2022 – commission PUNCH, MAY 15, 2014 BY OLUSOLA FABIYI The Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission has revealed that the country will get a nuclear plant in 2022 at a cost of $6b dollars.

The Director, Human Resources of the commission, Professor Simon Mallam, who stated this on Thursday when he appeared before the national conference committee on Energy, also urged the Federal government to explore and develop all sources of energy available in the country…..Mallam further advised that although the country wasted a little time in the nuclear arena, it would still be able to deliver nuclear power by 2022 if the enabling environment and support could be given….http://www.punchng.com/news/nigeria-to-get-6bn-nuclear-plant-in-2022-commission/

critics are worried that the project will do the country more harm than good. They say the effect of radioactive substance cuts across both geography and politics, and if not properly managed, may compromise not only the lives of the present generation but also several generations yet unborn.

What Nigeria needs now is investment in safe alternatives that will not harm the environment and the people.

Furore over nuclear power plant in Nigeria The Guardian, 06 SEPTEMBER 2012 00:00 FROM CHUKWUMA MUANYA AND EMEKA ANUFORO, FOCUS PRESIDENT Goodluck Jonathan and the relevant agencies set up to actualize Nigeria’s dream of becoming a “nuclear power” are excited that the national nuclear power programme has reached an advanced stage.

Nigeria and Russian had in June begun implementation of a nuclear power generation agreement signed in June 2009, to facilitate cooperation on the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Continue reading →

1.This Month

This page has a very useful “SEARCH” function. If you scroll down the right side panel you can use either the categories listed, or the “Search” slot. Type in a name or a place or topic on this slot, and it’s easy to find a related post.

Changing climate change“2040” paints an optimistic picture of the future of the environment

The film focuses on technological and agricultural solutions that are already being implemented to help combat climate change, The Economist Feb 19th 2019

by C.G. | BERLIN ……….In “2040”, a documentary which premiered at the Berlinale, Mr Gameau seeks to wrest hope from the bleak reports of climate change. He was inspired by Project Drawdown, the first comprehensive plan to reverse global warming, and the film is intended as a “virtual letter to his four-year-old daughter to show her an alternative future”. “Many films,” Mr Gameau thinks, are too dystopian, and “paint a future that is really hard to engage and to connect with”. “2040” acknowledges that the Earth has set off down a hazardous path, but focuses on the work that is being done now to steer the right course. What, the film asks, could make 2040 a time worth living in?…. (subscribers only) https://www.economist.com/prospero/2019/02/19/2040-paints-an-optimistic-picture-of-the-future-of-the-environment